Login For Lawyers Home Consult a lawyer Flat fee services About Blog Judgements Careers Contact Us Snippet Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Legal Topics
Leo Francis Xaviour V/s The Principal, Karunya Institute
Recent Post

Get Legato App on your mobile.

Leo Francis Xaviour V/s The Principal, Karunya Institute
Leo Francis Xaviour V/s The Principal, Karunya Institute

Facts of the Case

The petitioner here in the above matter is a first-year student from the Karunya Institute of Technology, the petitioner here was studying in the 3rd year of the engineering batch of Civil Engineering course. The course he opted in the college was Bachelors of Engineering; the respondent here is 1st respondent, the Principal of the college, and the 2nd respondent the Registrar of the Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. The petition filed by Mr. Leo, the petitioner, was against the decision of the principal of the college that resulted in his expulsion. Such decision was given by a principal in accordance with the rationale provided by the college authority that the petitioner was involved in the ragging activity of a first-year student of the same college.

The Principal of the college issued this order against the action of the petitioner, but in the same reference, the petitioner filed against such order on the date 8th of September, 1992. The principal provided the details of the observation before concluding with the decision regarding his expulsion; the statement said the petitioner was involved in the act of ragging of the student in such brutal way that includes beating the students in an uncultured way, using abusive words against them showing obscene pictures and also threatening them for consequences which eventually resulted in mental and physical torture to these freshmen. The respondent number two has nothing to do with the petition filed in this behalf, as there was nothing added to the matter has done by the Registrar in the order so as there no cause of action pleaded by the petitioner in the matter. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in the High Court with the writ petition where such affidavit provides no reason for impleading the second respondent. The writ petition states that the 2nd respondent has unnecessarily been dragged in the above mater, so any action against the 2nd respondent should be dismissed. The petitioner has made the submission that he has been the victim of the personal grudge of the staff in the college and had suffered these consequences without any fault in it.

Issues of the Case

  1. Whether the order passed by the authority in expulsion valid?
  2. Whether to decide the order passed is out of personal grudge or has a theory behind it?


The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that and opinion for resolving the issues it states that there is the number of the States where the rules and regulation in curbing the act of ragging have already been implemented which has resulted in declaring the offence of ragging as cognizable and various penalties have been awarded by the court in this matter. The court has reason to find that there was an appropriate direction provided by the authorities involved earlier but as to the behaviour of the then respondent has no change which provides the intention of the respondent in committing such offence. The findings provide that there were clear direction and enquiry set out for such investigation and inspection of the brutal act of ragging and there was a proper application of the natural justice for providing the then respondent to have the opportunity of being heard, where the same was provided it makes a clear view that all the enquiries and intervals followed in the previous year was not complied by the authorities in this year and such lacking the functions of the authorities has a complete reason for the suspicious of the court.

The court was of the opinion that it is high for the State of Tamil Nadu to legislate against the offence. Though this court can provide the suggestion to the government as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court judiciary will not be able to compel the legislative action. This court further hopes that the government will be taking severe actions in providing help for mitigating the losses and eliminating this action. This court relies upon that I cannot be agreed with the earlier judgment and considering the matter above it is stated that it cannot further agree to a proves where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, this might dilate the idea of moral justice in the society which cannot be a comfortable solution.

The alleged misconduct if proven, would have been an offence under section 377 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court questions the act pressing the impulse of the society by going beyond the provisions of the statute laid down. This court relied on the finding of the enquiry committee and decided that there cannot be any interferences, and this court further will be in no power to pass any judgment against. The plea was taken by the first respondent that it is a private institute and there cannot be any writ petition filed against the college. Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner has no locus standii has accepted by this court. The court fined itself in no position to deal with the matter with the reason provided on. The court further also comments and accepts that the principle of natural justice has been complied with in satisfaction of this court. The court also mentioned that it sees no reason to interfere with the order provided by the college with regards to the expulsion of the petitioner.

The Honorable High Court finds it that this petition filed by the petitioner is to the satisfaction of this court worthy of being dismissed as per the reason provided. The High Court dismisses the plea and also relieves the 2nd respondent from the litigation. The petitioner should be liable to pay the cost of 2nd respondent in the matter. The court decided to fix the counsel’s fee at Rs. 500/-.

All Comments